Lemieux, Measure L Committee discuss possible way forward

In the eye of an otherwise heated topic over the last month, City Attorney Keith Lemieux addressed the Measure L Citizens Oversight Committee Wednesday regarding operations and insight into how the committee might go forward.Community support for the committee was strong, with 20 members of the public on hand to watch the meeting.Lemieux started off by explaining his intent in trying to speak with committee members individually at the Jan. 23 special council meeting was not meant as an act to exclude any of them.Such actions, he said, were not unusual when it came to the city council, as meeting with more than two at once could violate the Brown Act.His mistake, he said, was thinking the same with the committee and not realizing it might set off controversy.The purpose of the meeting, from his perspective, was establishing some aspects that he said the committee had yet to do, including setting a resolution that governs procedure and meeting times.Under the current ordinance governing the oversight committee, a meeting time and day needs to be established by resolution. A second item that needed to be addressed was the establishment of procedures for calling special meetings."The reason for that is that you are governed by the Brown Act but the Brown Act doesn't tell how you how to conduct hearings," Lemieux said.Under the Brown Act, a committee or governing body must notify all local press of normal circulation, including radio and television stations 24 hours prior to calling a meeting.Lemieux raised concerns about the frequency of the committee's meetings. Currently the Measure L committee meets two Mondays a month.He also raised the issue of the committee's cost to the city."It does put a cost on the city holding these meetings," he said. He said a city staff member needs to be here to act as secretary for meetings.The current secretarial contact for the Measure L committee is Karen Harker from the Public Works Department, and assumes various roles including sending out the agenda. Committee member Michael Petersen typically records and takes the minute notes, however.Lemieux indicated that a committee member cannot act as secretary.When Lemieux asked what the committee's reason for meeting so frequently, Petersen indicated it initially coincided with the frequency of city council meetings, all the while working through the city budget and working on items that connect to roads and police.The plan is to document actions related to Measure L, Petersen said.Lemieux pointed out the committee was tasked with creating an annual audit independent of the council.Committee Vice Chair Phil Salvatore said the reason behind creating a quarterly budget report was the fluidity of the city's budget."The budget doesn't settle down," Salvatore said. "If the budget settled down, then an annual report would make more sense."Lemieux recommended a series of interim or draft reports and a final overall annual audit that fell in sync with the city's closing of the year-end budget.One of Salvatore's actions on the committee has been delving into at least nine years of city finances to form a baseline report for various funding sources to streets, and then inflating all the figures to current-year dollars.The goal behind that is to ensure there is to watch against any "back-filling" of roads and public safety by transferring traditional general fund revenue out and simply replacing it with Measure L funds.Lemieux indicated while it was admirable the committee might attempt to establish a baseline budget, saying it could be a source for heartburn."It is a very hard analysis to do and not be subjective," Lemieux said. In short, it was a rabbit hole when it came to wondering what any future budget might be without Measure L.Salvatore countered that was likely the single most opposition behind Measure L being passed. If Measure L passed, the fear was the council would lack the fiscal discipline to commit to its promise.Lemieux used the police budget as an example, holding up that any recommendations made by Ridgecrest Police Chief Ron Strand would determine whether the council would need to cut or alter that department's budget.Committee Chair Eddie Thomas and Committee Member George Anderson pointed out his interest was to speak with Lemieux on the council possibly replacing certain committee members, indicating some rumors were floating around that the mayor could remove members.Lemieux pointed out the committee serves at the council's discretion, not the mayor's."I am not aware of any action item to have anyone removed," Lemieux said. "If there was, you would have notice of it."In the case of the Measure L Committee, Lemieux interpreted that removal of any member required a majority vote of the council, or three of five council members. This differs from normal commissions and committees under the council's purview, which require a four-fifths vote. Lemieux indicated the Measure L Committee's case was established by initiative when voters passed Measure L in June.Committee member Scott Garver addressed the controversy over a series of letters and summaries drafted Mayor Dan Clark and Keith Lemieux, including an executive summary by Lemieux."This whole storm of the last few months have been one of politics, not of the law or the ordinance," Garver said. He asked if the committee were at odds publicly with at least the mayor, did Lemieux represent a dual representation that contradicted each other.Lemieux indicated his job was to stay out of policy matters.Lemieux said one serious legal limitation that raised its head was the confinement to the committee's auditing of Measure L funds, not the overall budget."In my view that is somewhat of an open issue," Lemieux said. "From my view that is the whole nucleus of the political issue."Until any concrete procedures were set down, it was just arguing in the abstract, Lemieux said.Garver said that even if they put the goals like Salvatore's baseline budget into the procedures, it might still be at odds with the mayor and some media outlets."The issue is not that our procedures are written down or not," Garver said. "And writing down exactly in the procedures what Phil (Salvatore) is doing is not going to solve the problem."Lemieux said while the mayor and the committee may or may not agree on matters pertaining to budget oversight, it remained to be seen what might occur."Until we see what you're actually doing and I weigh in on at least the legal side of the point, people are free to disagree," Lemieux said.The meeting was cut short, however, before discussion could continue, when Lemieux excused himself for a required closed session council meeting. Another special meeting on the issue has been set for Feb. 20 at 4:30 p.m.At its next regular meeting on Feb. 11, the committee is set to address the matter of its rebuttal to Mayor Clark's letter, in addition to addressing the sample resolution Lemieux left with the committee.

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.